The National Law Forum

Missouri Cannabis Regulators Show Me a Well-Considered Clarification of Earlier Rule Essentially Banning Hemp Products

I can only assume that being a cannabis regulator is a challenging and usually thankless job. The laws are relatively new and constantly evolving. Operators are always pushing the science faster than regulators can promulgate thoughtful new rules. And of course, there is no shortage of bad actors in the cannabis business.

That said, Budding Trends has been tough on cannabis regulators when it seemed warranted. And we’ve had no shortage of material.

We wanted to take this occasion to applaud the recent letter from the Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services announcing a substantial rollback of Gov. Mike Parson’s Executive Order that appeared to ban all “psychoactive cannabis products.”

The governor’s order would, by its terms, essentially destroy the state’s market for products containing hemp-derived THC. To be fair, the stated purpose of the order – to keep psychoactive cannabis products out of the hands of children – is a noble goal and one shared by any responsible operator in the hemp-derived THC business. Unfortunately, the plain language of the order goes much further and threatens to end the sale of most hemp products in Missouri.

In comes Missouri Department of Health & Senior Service Deputy Director and General Counsel Richard Moore to the rescue. In a recent letter, Moore “clarify[ied] any misunderstandings about the Department’s efforts to keep Missourians and their children safe from psychoactive cannabis products, sometimes called intoxicating cannabis products.” As part of this clarification, and in furtherance of the department’s commitment to “transparency in its enforcement efforts,” the department will limit its focus to (1) hemp-derived THC products targeting children and (2) “any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of [hemp-derived THC products].”

The department does not have any intention, however, of initiating enforcement actions against other hemp-derived THC products. Specifically, “[h]emp or cannabidiol (CBD) products which are collected by extraction and have not been changed into a new substance, such as hemp protein powders, hemp milk, hemp flower, hemp teas or other drinks, CBD gummies, CBD drink additives, or foods with CBD” are not the focus of the department’s enforcement efforts.

I believe this represents a fair compromise that accomplishes both the governor’s stated and worthwhile goals of eliminating deceptive hemp operators and those who would sell hemp-derived THC products to children, as well as keeping the hemp regime implemented by the Missouri Legislature in place.

More states would do well to consider this approach. For an example of the opposite approach, consider our recent post on Mississippi’s potential ban on hemp beverages. Consider, too, a much different approach taken by the solicitor general of South Carolina, which we will write about in the coming days.

And perhaps most importantly, consider whether Congress can fashion a similar compromise as it considers federal hemp policy in the next Farm Bill in the coming months.

Non-Compete Associated with Partial Sale of Business Must Be “Reasonable” To Be Enforced

Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC, 104 Cal. App. 5^th 331 (2024)

Robert and Stephen Samuelian co-founded Life Generations Healthcare, LLC. When they sold a portion of the business, the company adopted a new operating agreement that restrained its members (including the Samuelians) from competing with the company. The Samuelians later filed a dispute in arbitration challenging the enforceability of the non-compete, contending that it was per se unenforceable pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600; in response, the company contended that the “reasonableness standard” (as set forth in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 9 Cal. 5^th 1130 (2020)) should be applied to determine the enforceability of the non-compete.

The arbitrator and the trial court agreed with the Samuelians and held that the agreement was per se unenforceable pursuant to Section 16600. In this opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Section 16600 only applies if the restrained party sells its entire business interest and that the statute does not apply “to partial sales after which an individual retains a significant interest in the business.” In the case of a partial sale, the Ixchel reasonableness standard applies to determine the enforceability of the noncompete. The court also held that the “sale of the business” exception to Section 16600 (Sections 16601, et seq.) only applies if there has been: (1) a sale of the entire business interest; and (2) a transfer of “some goodwill” as part of the transaction. The opinion also contains a detailed discussion of members’ fiduciary duties in a manager-managed company under the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (RULLCA) and holds that an operating agreement can impose reasonable non-compete restrictions on members of a manager-managed company.

The Fifth Circuit Confirms the DOL’s Authority to Use Salary Basis Test for FLSA Overtime Exemptions

On September 11, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor confirmed that the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) has the authority to use a salary basis to define its white-collar overtime exemptions. This is a significant win for the DOL as it is presently defending its latest increase to the minimum salary thresholds for executive, administrative, and professional exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), also known as the FLSA’s “white-collar exemptions,” in litigation pending in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas.

The Mayfield Decision

In Mayfield, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit provided that the DOL has the authority to “define and delimit” an exemption from overtime pay under the FLSA. In so ruling, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit initiated by a Texas fast-food operator, Robert Mayfield, who claimed Congress never authorized the DOL to use salaries as a test for whether workers have managerial duties.

The Court rejected Mayfield’s argument. In response, the Fifth Circuit wrote that “[d]istinctions based on salary level are… consistent with the FLSA’s broader structure, which sets out a series of salary protections for workers that common sense indicates are unnecessary for highly paid employees.” Upon issuing the Mayfield decision, the Fifth Circuit joined the four other federal appeals courts that have considered this issue previously (including the D.C. Circuit, Second Circuit, Sixth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit).

2024 DOL Rule

The 2024 DOL rule effectively focused on three main points. First, it raised the minimum weekly salary to qualify for the FLSA’s white-collar exemptions from $684 per week to $844 per week (equivalent to a $43,888 annual salary) on July 1, 2024. Second, it called for another increase of the minimum weekly salary to $1,128 per week (equivalent of a $58,656 annual salary) on January 1, 2025. Third, under the 2024 DOL rule, the above salary threshold would increase every three years based on recent wage data.

As mentioned above, the Mayfield decision comes at a time when the DOL is defending its recent 2024 rule increasing the salary thresholds for white-collar exemptions in both the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas. Indeed, the Mayfield decision’s timing could not have come at a more opportune time for the DOL because it supplies these Texas federal judges with new direction from the Fifth Circuit to consider when making their rulings.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

The Mayfield decision bolsters the DOL in its bid to set and increase the minimum salary requirements for its white-collar overtime exemptions, which will certainly pose challenges for employers in creating compliant employee compensation structures. In short, if the 2024 DOL rule goes into effect, employers will have to substantially raise their employees’ salaries to ensure they remain properly exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

by: Derek A. McKee of Polsinelli PC

For more news on Overtime Exemption Litigation, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

The Corporate Transparency Act Requires Reporting of Beneficial Owners

The Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) became effective on January 1, 2024, requiring many corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnerships, and other entities to register with and report certain information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the U.S. Department of Treasury (“Treasury”). The CTA marks a substantial increase in the reporting obligations for many U.S. companies, as well as for non-U.S. companies doing business in the United States.

IN SHORT:
Most corporate entities are now required to file a beneficial ownership information report (“BOI Report”) with FinCEN disclosing certain information about the entity and those persons who are “beneficial owners” or who have “substantial control.” BOI Reports for companies owned by trusts and estates may require significant analysis to determine beneficial ownership and substantial control.

The CTA imposes potential penalties on entities that fail to file BOI Reports with FinCEN by the prescribed deadline. For entities formed prior to January 1, 2024, a BOI Report must be filed by January 1, 2025. For entities formed on or after January 1, 2024, but prior to January 1, 2025, a BOI Report must be filed within 90 days of the entity’s formation. For entities formed on or after January 1, 2025, a BOI Report must be filed within 30 days of the entity’s formation.

Entities formed after January 1, 2024, must also report information regarding “company applicants” to FinCEN. If certain information within a BOI Report changes, entities are required to file a supplemental BOI Report within 30 days of such change.

While Winstead’s Wealth Preservation Practice Group will not be directly filing BOI Reports with FinCEN, our attorneys and staff will be available this year, by appointment, to answer questions regarding reporting requirements if scheduled by Friday, November 22, 2024. We strongly recommend that company owners begin analyzing what reporting obligations they may have under the CTA and schedule appointments with their professional advisors now to ensure availability.

BACKGROUND:
Congress passed the CTA in an effort to combat money laundering, fraud, and other illicit activities accomplished through anonymous shell companies. To achieve this objective, most entities operating in the United States will now be required to file BOI Reports with FinCEN.

The CTA applies to U.S. companies and non-U.S. companies registered to operate in the United States that fall within the definition of a “reporting company.” There are certain exceptions specifically enumerated in the CTA, which generally cover entities that are already subject to anti-money laundering requirements, entities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or other federal regulatory bodies, and entities that pose a low risk of the illicit activities targeted by the CTA.

REPORTING OBLIGATIONS:
Entity Information. Each reporting company is required to provide FinCEN with the following information:

the legal name of the reporting company;
the mailing address of the reporting company;
the state of formation (or foreign country in which the entity was formed, if applicable) of the reporting company; and
the employer identification number of the reporting company.

Beneficial Owner and Applicant Information. Absent an exemption, each reporting company is also required to provide FinCEN with the following information regarding each beneficial owner and each company applicant:

full legal name;
date of birth;
current residential or business address; and
unique identifying number from a U.S. passport or U.S. state identification (e.g., state-issued driver’s license), a foreign passport, or a FinCEN identifier (i.e., the unique number issued by FinCEN to an individual).

DEFINITIONS:
Reporting Company. A “reporting company” is defined as any corporation, limited liability company, or any other entity created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a State. Certain entities are exempt from these filing requirements, including, but not limited to:

financial institutions and regulated investment entities;
utility companies;
entities that are described in Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code;
inactive, non-foreign owned entities with no assets; and
sizeable operating companies that employ more than 20 full-time employees in the United States that have filed a United States federal income tax return in the previous year demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales.

A reporting company that is not exempt must register with and report all required information to FinCEN by the applicable deadline.

Beneficial Owner. A “beneficial owner” is defined as any individual who, directly or indirectly, (i) exercises substantial control over such reporting company or (ii) owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of such reporting company.

Substantial Control. An individual exercises “substantial control” over a reporting company if the individual (i) serves as a senior officer of the reporting company, (ii) has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or the similar body governing such reporting company), or (iii) directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the reporting company, including by reason of such individual’s representation on the board (or other governing body of the reporting company) or control of a majority of the reporting company’s voting power.

Company Applicant. A “company applicant” is any individual who (i) files an application to form the reporting company under U.S. law or (ii) registers or files an application to register the reporting company under the laws of a foreign country to do business in the United States by filing a document with the secretary of state or similar office under U.S. law.

DEADLINES:
Entities Formed Before January 1, 2024. A reporting company that was formed prior to the effective date of the CTA (January 1, 2024) is required to register with FinCEN and file its initial BOI Report by January 1, 2025.

Entities Formed After January 1, 2024, but Before January 1, 2025. A reporting company that was formed after the effective date of the CTA (January 1, 2024), but before January 1, 2025, must register with FinCEN and file its initial BOI Report within 90 calendar days of formation.
Entities Formed After January 1, 2025. A reporting company formed after January 1, 2025, will be required to register with FinCEN and file its initial BOI Report within 30 calendar days of formation.

Supplemental BOI Reports. If any information included in a BOI Report changes, a reporting company must file a supplemental report with FinCEN within 30 days of such change. This includes minor changes, such as an address change or an updated driver’s license for a beneficial owner or someone who has substantial control over the reporting company.

PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE:
The CTA and Treasury regulations impose potential civil and criminal liability on reporting companies and company applicants that fail to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. Civil penalties for reporting violations include a monetary fine of up to $500 per day that the violation continues unresolved, adjusted for inflation. Criminal penalties include a fine of up to $10,000 and/or two years in prison.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO TRUSTS AND ESTATES:
When a trust or estate owns at least 25% of a reporting company or exercises substantial control over the reporting company, the BOI Report must generally include (i) the fiduciaries of the trust or estate (i.e., the trustee or executor), (ii) certain individual beneficiaries, and (iii) the settlor or creator of the trust. If the trust agreement gives other individuals certain rights and powers, however, such as a distribution advisor, trust protector, or trust committee member, the reporting company may also be required to disclose such individuals’ information in the BOI Report. Similarly, if a corporate trustee or executor is serving, the BOI Report must contain the names and information of the employees who actually administer the trust or estate on behalf of the corporation. Due to these nuances, it is often necessary to engage in additional analysis when a trust or estate is a beneficial owner of or has substantial control over a reporting company.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:
The CTA and its BOI Report filing requirement are still relatively new, and although FinCEN continues to publish additional guidance, many open questions remain. All companies formed or operating in the United States should carefully review whether they are required to file an initial BOI Report in accordance with the CTA, and take further steps to identify all individuals who must be included in such BOI Report.

DOJ Announces Changes to Guidance on Corporate Compliance Programs, Updates on Whistleblower Program

In an address this week to the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri of the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Criminal Division, highlighted several updates relevant to corporate compliance programs, including the DOJ’s new whistleblower programs and incentives.

Sufficient Compliance: Updated Areas to Consider

The Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (“ECCP”) is the compass by which the DOJ measures the efficacy of a corporation’s compliance program for potential credit or mitigation in the event an organization is potentially subject to prosecution.[1] Ms. Argentieri highlighted several key updates to the ECCP that the DOJ will now consider when evaluating whether a corporation’s compliance program is “effective” and thus deserving of credit and/or mitigation of criminal penalties.

These new factors include whether:

the resources and technology with which a company does business are applied to its compliance program, and whether its compliance program fully considers the risks of any technologies it utilizes (such as generative AI)[2];
the company had a culture of “speaking up” and protecting those who report on corporate misdeeds;
a company’s compliance department had access to adequate resources and data to perform its job effectively; and
a company learned from its past mistakes—and/or the mistakes of other companies.

Encouraging Self-Reporting: Presumptive Declination and Reduced Penalties

In her remarks, Ms. Argentieri stated that the previously announced Whistleblower Awards Program [3] had so far been successful in the eyes of the DOJ, but did not point to any specific case or outcome. Likely, it is too soon for the public to see the fruits of the program, given its nascent state and the time that usually elapses between the initiation of an investigation and its resolution. The DOJ appears to be stating, though, that it is receiving and following up on whistleblower reports already.

This new policy encouraging whistleblowing through financial incentives, however, was combined with an amendment to DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, which provides that there is a presumptive declination to prosecute should a company make a disclosure of wrongdoing within 120 days of receiving an internal report of alleged misconduct and before DOJ contacts the company regarding that matter. In short, DOJ is seeking to incentivize a “race to DOJ” to report potential misconduct – perhaps before the company can even confirm whether the allegation is credible.[4]

Organizations that opt to not take the early self-disclosure route can still reduce any criminal penalties they may face by up to half by fully cooperating with the DOJ in its investigation. Considerations DOJ will factor in when evaluating whether an organization “fully cooperates” include, among other things, how timely the cooperation was and if the company took appropriate remedial action (such as improving compliance programs and disciplining employees). The DOJ continues to emphasize the importance of clawing back compensation and/or reducing compensation and bonuses of wrong-doers (if not also terminating them).[5]

Tipping the Scales

In sum, these programs are clearly intended to materially alter the disclosure calculus of whether a company should disclose misconduct by putting quantifiable incentives on the side of timely disclosure and cooperation, namely declination. Combined with the DOJ’s updates to the ECCP, these programs attempt to bring clarity and consistency to the world of corporate criminal penalties (and possibly how to avoid them altogether). Companies are well-advised to review their existing compliance programs in light of these new incentives and guidance from the DOJ to ensure that they address the new factors enumerated by the DOJ, but also account for increased incentives for corporate whistleblowers.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines also define what constitutes an “effective compliance and ethics program” for credit under the guidelines. U.S.S.G. §8B2.1.

[2] This is not the first time, and unlikely to be the last, where DOJ has emphasized the use of AI to enhance corporate compliance. See Lisa Monaco, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Remarks at the University of Oxford on the Promise and Peril of AI (Feb. 14, 2024).

[3] Under the Criminal Division’s whistleblower pilot program (and like those of other U.S. Attorney’s Offices who have thus far adopted similar programs), whistleblowers are financially rewarded—through criminal forfeiture orders—for bringing forward information on specific alleged violations, so long as that person first reports the misconduct to the company and DOJ has not already learned of it. The Criminal Division’s Pilot Program on Voluntary Self-Disclosure for Individuals also provide culpable individuals who report to receive non-prosecution agreements in exchange for reporting their own conduct and the conduct of the company.

[4] The “race to DOJ” incentivized by these programs may indeed alter the corporate disclosure calculus—by moving up the date for any disclosure in light of the threat that an employee or third-party, aware of any investigation, may choose to report the matter to DOJ. Likewise, it may also change the nature of the internal investigation in ways to limit knowledge of the investigation early-on, like limiting early interviews until documents and data can be reviewed and analyzed.

[5] Indeed, DOJ will permit companies to earn a dollar-for-dollar reduction of a criminal penalty for each dollar a company successfully claws back from a wrong-doer to further incentivize companies to seek to claw back compensation paid.

USTR Finalizes New Section 301 Tariffs

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) published a Federal Register notice detailing its final modifications to the Section 301 tariffs on China-origin products. USTR has largely retained the proposed list of products subject to Section 301 tariffs announced in the May 2024 Federal Register notice (see our previous alert here) with a few modifications, including adjusting the rates and implementation dates for a number of tariff categories and expanding or limiting certain machinery and solar manufacturing equipment exclusions. USTR also proposes to impose new Section 301 tariff increases on certain tungsten products, polysilicon, and doped wafers.

The notice, published on September 18, 2024, clarifies that tariff increases will take effect on September 27, 2024, and subsequently on January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2026 (Annex A). The final modifications to Section 301 tariffs will apply across the following strategic sectors:

Steel and aluminum products – increase from 0-7.5% to 25%
Electric vehicles (EVs) – increase from 25% to 100%
Batteries
- Lithium-ion EV batteries – increase from 7.5% to 25%
- Battery parts (non-lithium-ion batteries) – increase from 7.5% to 25%
- Certain critical minerals – increase from 0% to 25%
- Lithium-ion non-EV batteries – increase from 7.5% to 25% on January 1, 2026
- Natural graphite – increase from 0% to 25% on January 1, 2026
Permanent magnets – increase from 0% to 25% on January 1, 2026,
Solar cells (whether or not assembled into modules) – increase from 25% to 50%
Ship-to-shore cranes – increase from 0% to 25% (with certain exclusions)
Medical products
- Syringes and needles (excluding enteral syringes) – increase from 0% to 100%
- Enteral syringes – increase from 0% to 100% on January 1, 2026
- Surgical and non-surgical respirators and facemasks (other than disposable):
  - increase from 0-7.5% to 25%; increase from 25% to 50% on January 1, 2026
- Disposable textile facemasks
  - January 1, 2025, increase from 5% to 25%; increase from 25% to 50% on January 1, 2026
- Rubber medical or surgical gloves:
  - increase from 7.5% to 50% on January 1, 2025; increase from 50% to 100% on January 1, 2026
- Semiconductors – increase from 25% to 50% on January 1, 2025

USTR adopted 14 exclusions to temporarily exclude solar wafer and cell manufacturing equipment from Section 301 tariffs (Annex B), while rejecting five exclusions for solar module manufacturing equipment proposed in the May 2024 notice. The exclusions are retroactive and applicable to products entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after January 1, 2024, and through May 31, 2025. USTR also granted a temporary exclusion for ship-to-shore gantry cranes imported under contracts executed before May 14, 2024, and delivered prior to May 14, 2026. To use this exclusion, the applicable importers must complete and file the certification (Annex D).

With respect to machinery exclusion, USTR added five additional subheadings to the proposed 312 subheadings to be eligible for consideration of temporary exclusions. USTR did not add subheadings outside of Chapters 84 and 85 or subheadings that include only parts, accessories, consumables, or general equipment that cannot physically change a good. USTR will likely issue additional guidance to seek exclusions of products under these eligible subheadings.

Importers should assess the (i) table of the tariff increases for the specified product groups (Annex A), (ii) temporary exclusions for solar manufacturing equipment (Annex B), (iii) the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) modifications to impose additional duties, to increase rates of additional duties, and to exclude certain solar manufacturing equipment from additional duties (Annex C), (iv) Importer Certification for ship-to-shore cranes entering under the exclusion (Annex D), and (v) HTSUS subheadings eligible for consideration of temporary exclusion under the machinery exclusion process (Annex E). The descriptions set forth in Annex A are informal summary descriptions, and importers should refer to the HTSUS modifications contained in Annex C for the purposes of assessing Section 301 duties and exclusions.

Importers should also carefully review the final list of products subject to the increased Section 301 tariff, with their supply chains, to identify products subject to increases in tariff rates as a result of the recent of USTR and consider appropriate mitigation strategies.

Former Acadia Employees Received Reward for Blowing the Whistle on Healthcare Fraud

The United States Department of Justice settled a False Claims Act qui tam whistleblower lawsuit against inpatient behavioral health facilities operator Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. Under the terms of the settlement, the operator paid almost $20 million to the United States and the States of Florida, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada. The relators, or whistleblowers, who filed suit in 2017, received a reward of 19% of the government’s recovery of misspent Medicare, TRICARE, and Medicaid funds. According to one of the Relators, Jamie Clark Thompson, a former Director of Nursing at Acadia’s Lakeview Behavioral Health facility, “I am passionate about advocating for improved and quality services for individuals living with mental illness. Unfortunately, our communities have seen the devastating impact when this vulnerable population receives inadequate care. I firmly believe that by continuously working to improve our mental health system, we can support recovery and well-being, benefiting our entire community. I hope that my actions have made a difference, and I know that properly allocating funds is crucial to supporting behavioral health services and those working tirelessly to improve them.”

Medicare, TRICARE, and Medicaid Fraud Allegations

According to the settlement agreement, the whistleblowers alleged Acadia and certain of its facilities submitted false claims to Medicare, TRICARE, and Medicaid. Specifically, the facilities allegedly admitted ineligible patients, provided services for longer than was medically necessary or did not provide treatment at all (but still billed the healthcare programs for it), did not provide sufficient care for those who needed acute care or individualized care plans, and hired the wrong people or failed to train their staff to “prevent assaults, elopements, suicides, and other harm resulting from staffing failures.”

Behavioral Health Facility Fraud

Behavioral healthcare facilities provide inpatient, outpatient, and residential care for adolescents, adults, and seniors for mental health conditions. As taxpayer-funded healthcare programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE cover behavioral healthcare. Treating mentally ill Medicare, Medicaid, or TRICARE beneficiaries as cash cows, and either under-treating, over-treating, or not treating them at all both robs the individuals of the chance to recover, wastes taxpayer resources, and may even jeopardize their safety and well-being.

The Importance of Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE Whistleblowers

Whistleblowers who report behavioral health facility fraud are not only protecting vulnerable patients but also making sure federally funded healthcare dollars are being spent to properly treat adolescent, adult and older patients with significant behavioral health conditions. Three employees at different Acadia facilities came forward, faced retaliation for speaking up, and are now being rewarded for helping to fight fraud and abuse and for their courage.

Read the Department of Justice’s Press Release

by: Tycko & Zavareei Whistleblower Practice Group of Tycko & Zavareei LLP

Sixth Circuit Explicitly Sidesteps the NLRB’s McLaren Macomb Decision

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declined to comment on the National Labor Relations Board’s (the “Board”) McLaren Macomb decision which took aim at overbroad non-disparagement and non-disclosure agreements.

We first reported in February 2023, on the significant decision by the Board in McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (Feb. 21, 2023), which concluded, among other things, that proffering a severance agreement with broad confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions could violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) – a decision and rationale we wrote about in depth here. The decision drove employers to reevaluate existing severance agreements with such provisions.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit sidestepped the most salient aspects of the Board’s McLaren Macomb decision, namely those portions addressing the lawfulness of confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in severance agreements, writing, “we do not address [the Board’s] decision to reverse Baylor [Univ. Med. Ctr., 369 NLRB No. 43 (2020)] and IGT[, 370 NLRB No. 50 (Nov. 4, 2020)], or whether it correctly interpreted the NLRA in doing so.” In other words, the Sixth Circuit did not offer any insight or pass judgment one way or another on the Board’s ruling that broad-based non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions are unlawful under NLRA. Indeed, while the Sixth Circuit did find the specific severance agreements at issue unlawful, it did so under previous Board precedent (not for the reasons articulated in McLaren Macomb), further reinforcing the Court’s unwillingness to address this critical issue directly.

What does this mean for employers? While there is lingering uncertainty for employers, it reinforces, at least for now, that the Board may continue to find severance agreements offered to non-supervisory employees that include broad-based confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions as unlawful. Consequently, employers should continue to review their existing severance agreements with the assistance of employment counsel to determine whether, when, and to what extent they may include appropriately crafted non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses.

Massachusetts SJC Rules in Favor of Insureds for Ambiguous Insurance Policy Term

In Zurich American Insurance Company v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (and a consolidated case[1]) (Docket No. SJC-13535), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of insureds in a dispute over an ambiguous term in two policies insuring Norwood Hospital in Norwood, Massachusetts. A severe storm with heavy rain caused damage to the hospital basement and to the hospital’s main buildings caused by seepage through the courtyard roof and parapet roof. The owner of the Hospital, Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (“MPT”) and the tenant, Steward Health Care System LLC[2] (“Steward”), both had insurance policies for the Hospital, MPT’s coverage being through Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), and Steward’s through American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company & another (“AGLIC”). Both policies had coverage of up to $750 and $850 million but lower coverage limits for damage to the Hospital for “Flood” at $100 and $150 million (“Flood Sublimits”). Both Steward and MPT submitted proof of loss claims to their respective insurers that exceeded $200 million; the insurers responded that damage to the hospital was caused by “Flood”, which limits both MPT and Steward to their respective Flood Sublimits. The policy provision “Flood” is defined as “a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas or structures caused by…the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters, waves, tides, tidal waves, tsunami, the release of water, the rising, overflowing or breaking of boundaries of nature or man-made bodies of water.”

The insurers, and MPT and Steward had differing opinions on the definition of “surface waters.” Litigation commenced to determine the extent of coverage available to MPT and Steward for damage to the hospital. The parties agreed that the damage to the basement was caused by Flood, and therefore subject to the Flood Sublimits. However, the parties disagreed as to whether the damage caused by rain seeping in through the courtyard roof and parapet roof was caused by “Flood” because of ambiguity in the definition of Flood. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the term “surface waters” in both policies’ definition of “Flood” included rainwater accumulating on the rooftop. The judge allowed an interlocutory appeal due to the substantial difference in opinion of the term “surface water” under the definition of “Flood.” The Court noted that case law across the country is divided on this issue. MPT and Steward appealed, and the First Circuit certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), “Whether rainwater that lands and accumulates on either (i) a building’s second-floor outdoor rooftop courtyard or (ii) a building’s parapet roof and that subsequently inundates the interior of the building unambiguously constitutes ‘surface waters’ under Massachusetts law for the purposed of the insurance policies at issue?”

The SJC concluded that the meaning of “surface waters” and the definition of “Flood” under the policies are ambiguous in regard to the accumulation of rainwaters on roofs, finding that ambiguity is not the party’s disagreement of a term’s meaning but rather where it is susceptible of more than one meaning and reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to which meaning is the proper one. The SJC noted there is no consistent interpretation in case law for “surface waters” to include rainwater accumulating on a roof. Reasoning that if the policy language is ambiguous as to its intended meaning, then the meaning must be resolved against the insurers that drafted the terms, as they had the opportunity to add more precise terms to the policy and did not do so.

This case is an example of the importance for all parties to closely review the language of their insurance coverage to ensure that coverage is consistent with their lease obligations. Additionally, this dispute also draws attention to the importance of casualty provisions in leases. It is important to negotiate the burden of costs in the event of caps or insufficient insurance, along with termination rights for each party.

[1] Steward Health Care System LLC vs. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company & another.

[2] Apart from this litigation, the future of Norwood Hospital as a hospital is uncertain as it has not been open for four years and Steward Health Care System LLC has filed for bankruptcy protection.

Workplace Safety Concerns for Florida Employers in Anticipation of Hurricane Helene

Tropical Storm Helene is projected to hit Florida’s Gulf Coast as a major hurricane later this week, and evacuations are already underway in parts of the state. Employers are likely to face inevitable workplace safety risks with the storm and recovery.

Quick Hits

Tropical Storm Helene is expected to make landfall in Florida as a major hurricane as early as September 26, 2024.
Governor Ron DeSantis has declared a state of emergency for sixty-one counties across the state.
Employers may want to consider their obligations to protect workers and maintain a safe workplace and begin preparations for the hurricane response.

After developing over the Caribbean, Tropical Storm Helene is expected to “rapidly intensify” into a “major hurricane” as it moves over the Gulf of Mexico before making landfall on Florida as early as Thursday, September 26, according to the National Hurricane Center.

On Monday, September 23, Governor Ron DeSantis declared a state of emergency for forty-one counties in Florida. A day later, on September 24, the governor issued a new executive order expanding the emergency order to most of Florida’s sixty-seven counties.

By the time the the storm the storm makes landfall, it is expected to have intensified into at least a Category 3 hurricane, which can bring winds of up to 130 mph and can cause storm surges greater than ten feet. The storm is projected to affect the entire Gulf Coast of Florida as it moves up through the Florida panhandle and into the Southeastern United States.

In total, sixty-one Florida counties are under a state of emergency: Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Brevard, Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Columbia, DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Glades, Gulf, Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Lee, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Monroe, Nassau, Okaloosa, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Volusia, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington counties.

Workplace Safety Compliance

The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act and Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) standards require employers to take certain actions to ensure a safe and healthy workplace and make preparations for potential risks, including with regard to events like hurricanes and other natural disasters. Here are some key requirements:

General Duty Clause: The OSH Act requires that employers provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that could cause death or serious harm, including preparing for and responding to hurricanes and their related hazards. Employers are further required to protect employees from anticipated hazards associated with the response and recovery efforts employees are expected to perform.
Emergency Action Plans (EAPs): Under OSHA standards, many employers must develop and implement EAPs, covering evacuation procedures, emergency contact information, and roles for employees during emergencies, such as hurricanes.
Training: Employers are also required to provide training with employees on emergency procedures, including evacuation and shelter-in-place protocols, to ensure they know what to do during a hurricane.
Hazard Communication: Employers must inform employees about potential hazards, such as chemical spills or structural damage, that could occur during or after a hurricane.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Employers may need to provide necessary PPE for employees involved in clean-up and recovery efforts following the hurricane.
Post-Event Safety: Employers may be required to conduct hazard assessments and ensure the workplace is safe before employees return to work after a hurricane.

Next Steps

Given the risks of the hurricane, employers may want to start preparing, if they have not already done so, to ensure the safety of their workplaces and their employees, including communicating emergency plans, and, in some cases, closing or evacuating workplaces entirely.

OSHA has provided more information and resources for employers on preparing for and responding to hurricanes on its website here.

Further, in addition to workplace safety concerns, employers have additional legal obligations or considerations with natural disasters that they may want to incorporate into their disaster management and response plans.

The National Law Forum

Missouri Cannabis Regulators Show Me a Well-Considered Clarification of Earlier Rule Essentially Banning Hemp Products

Like this:

Non-Compete Associated with Partial Sale of Business Must Be “Reasonable” To Be Enforced

Like this: